alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
EXHIBIT 32.a



CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

In connection with the Quarterly Report of Boston Capital Tax Credit Fund III L.P. (the "Fund") on Form 10-Q for the period ended September 30, 2006 as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the "Report"), I, John P. Manning, Principal Executive Officer of the general partner of the general partner of the Partnership's general partner, C&M Management Inc., certify, pursuant to 18 U.S.C. section 1350, as adopted pursuant to section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that to the best of my knowledge, after due inquiry:



|(1) | The Report fully complies with the requirements of section 13(a)-15 or 15(d)-15 of the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934; and                        
|--- | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|    |                                                                                                                                                        
|(2) | The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material respects, the financial condition and result of operations of the Partnership.



|Date:            |  |                            
|---------------- |  | ---------------------------
|January 23, 2007 |  | /s/ John P. Manning        
|                 |  |                            
|                 |  | John P. Manning            
|                 |  | Principal Executive Officer



A signed original of this written statement required by Section 906, or other

document authenticating, acknowledging, or otherwise adopting the signature that appears in typed form within the electronic version of this written statement required by Section 906, has been provided to the Fund and will be retained by the Fund and furnished to the Securities and Exchange Commission or its staff upon request.
U.S . DEPARTMEN T O F TRANSPORTATIO

N FEDERA L AVIATIO

N ADMINISTRATIO N C f ^ C |\ / P F ^ OFFIC E O FHEARINGS JxCwdVI

—•- ' WASHINGTON , D.C . j^ ^ ^ 6 20t t 

## HEARIN G DUCKE T I n the Matte

r of Harrison Yach

t Sales , Inc . FA A Docke t No . CP10EA000 6 FDMS No . FAA-2010-062 6 Th e Honorable Ronni e A . Yode r ^

- -lo^^ ^

COMPLAINANT' S RESPONS E TO RESPONDENT' S REQUES T FO RA POSTPONEMEN

T O FTH E HEARING

COMES NO

W th e Complainant , b

y an dthroug h it s designate drepresentative , th e Regiona

l Counsel fo

r th e Easter

n Regio n an

dhi s designate dan

dauthorize d agents , andrespond s t o Respondent' s Reques t fo r aPostponemen

t o f th e Hearing a s follows : Complainan

t doe s no t object t o Respondent' s reques t

t o chang e th e hearin g date , excep t

tha t Complainant' s Counsel i s unavailabl e Apri l 4- 6 an dth e wee k o f Apri l 24 , 2011 . I n addition . Complainan

t respectfull

y request s tha

t it b e permitte dt

osupplemen t it s Witnes s an dExhibi t

Lis t prio r t o th e hearing . Respectfull y submitted , Alfre dR . Johnson , Jr . Regiona l Counse l By : /^^ t

)^C^r^' ^ Dated : 1 h^l n Jeanm e C . Godme r Attorne y Federa l Aviatio n Administratio n Offic e o f th e Regiona l Counse l (AEA-7 ) Easter n Regio n Headquarter s 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4 Telephone : 71 8 553-327 2 Facsimile : 71 8 995-569 9CERTIFICAT E O F SERVIC E

I hereb y certif

y that o n thi s da

y copie s o f

th e foregoin g wer e place din th e Unite d State s mail , postag e prepaid . Firs t Clas s Mai l addresse da s follows : An dvi afacsimil e Th e Honorabl e Ronni e A . Yode r Chie f Administrativ e La w Judg e U.S . Departmen t

o f Transportatio n Offic e o f Hearings , M-20 , Roo mE l 2-32 0 1200 Ne w Jerse y Avenue , S.E . Washington , D.C . 2059 0 FA X 202-366-753 6 Federal Aviatio n Administratio n (Original an don e copy ) 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . Washington , D.C . 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4 An dvi afacsimil e Davi dHarrison , Presiden t Harriso n Yach t

Sales , Inc . 10 6 Well s Cov e Roa d P O Bo x 9 8 Grasonville,M D 2163 8 FA X 410-827-483 0

Mariann aPerer o Paralega l Specialis t Offic e o f Regiona l Counse l 1 Aviatio n Plaz a Jamaica , N Y 1143 4
#### Thelma WRIGHT and Thelma Wright, as Guardian for Freddie Wright, III, Appellants, v. AFRO AMERICAN LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY et al., Appellees.

No. 20518.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Nov. 21, 1963.

B. Clarence Mayfield, J. T. Williams, Jr., Savannah, Ga., for appellants.

Earl M. Johnson, Jacksonville, Fla., for appellees.

Before TUTTLE, Chief Judge, JONES, Circuit Judge, and JOHNSON, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
#### Jou v. Schmidt

27370

05/16/2008

Denied

117 Hawai'i 502, 184 P.3d 817
consider the affidavits and other evidence before it and determine "the 

probable validity of the plaintiffs underlying claim." If the court 

determines that the claim is "probably valid," the writ of attachment must 

issue upon the plaintiff posting a bond in the sum of the amount claimed 

or the value of the property, with two or more sureties. NRS 31.026; NRS 

31.030(1). 

Here, the district court failed to make any findings as to the 

merits of petitioner's claim and refused to issue the writ of attachment 

only because it could find "no nexus" between the claim and the property 

to be attached. While a connection between the case and the attachment 

might help support issuance of a writ without pre-deprivation notice, see 

Mitchell v. W.T. Grant Co., 416 U.S. 600 (1974), the lack of any connection 

does not preclude issuance if the claim's probable validity is determined 

after a hearing or if other factors warranting its ex parte issuance are met. 

See NRS 31.017; NRS 31.026; Connecticut ix Doehr, 501 U.S. 1, 16 (1991) 

(explaining that evidence that the defendant is taking steps to render his 

real estate unable to satisfy a judgment could warrant issuing an ex parte 

writ of attachment). 

The district court failed to analyze petitioner's assertions 

under NRS 31.017(5) as to whether real parties in interest were 

attempting to dispose of assets that could be used to satisfy a judgment in 

petitioner's favor, such as to warrant immediate attachment. Moreover, 

although a hearing was held, the district court failed to analyze the 

probable validity of petitioner's claim in light of the disputed facts. 

Accordingly, the district court arbitrarily and capriciously exercised its 

discretion in denying petitioner's motion for a prejudgment writ of 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 2 

NEVADA 

(0) 1947A se 
J. 

attachment, Int? Game Tech., Inc. v. Second Judicial Dist. Court, 124 Nev. 

193, 197, 179 P.3d 556, 558 (2008), and we thus 

ORDER the petition GRANTED AND DIRECT THE 

CLERK OF THIS COURT TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS 

instructing the district court to reconsider petitioner's motion under the 

standards recited above. 

Gibbons 

cc: Hon. Douglas Smith, District Judge 

Shimon Law Firm, APC 

Law Offices of P. Sterling Kerr 

Eighth District Court Clerk 

SUPREME COURT 

OF 

NEVADA 

3 

(0) )947A
#### In the Matter of Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3, Town of Hempstead, Petitioner, *v.*Ewald B. Nyquist, as Commissioner of Education of the State of New York, Respondent.

Supreme Court, Special Term, Albany County,

December 21, 1970.

*Max Margules*for petitioner. *Robert D.*Stone, *Donald 0. Meserve*and *Kenneth J. Toomey*for respondent. *Gammer & Shapiro*for intervenors-respondents.

John H. Pennock, J.

This is an article 78 proceeding commenced by the petitioner, Board of Education of Union Free School District No. 3, Town of Hempstead, against the Commissioner of Education of the State of New York. The petitioner prays for a judgment annulling the determination of the Commissioner of Education upon the grounds that the said appeal and determination made by the Commissioner were in excess of his jurisdiction, in violation of lawful procedure, arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion. There was *155no oral argument by either counsel, therefore the court is not aware of any different relief.

The respondent, in lieu of interposing an answer, moved to dismiss the petition on the grounds that it does not contain facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. (CPLB 7804, ■subd. [f].)

An order of intervention was granted by Mr. Justice Mahoney on October 23, 1970, Special Term with conditions. The motion should have continued with that Special Term, but for some reason it was adjourned to this Special Term.

This court determines that the proceedings before the Commissioner involve an educational administrative policy in which the Commissioner has the prerogative to substitute his judgment for that of the local board. *(Matter of Vetere*v. *Allen,*15 N Y 2d 259.) The board’s defense of laches which was summarily disposed of in the Commissioner’s decision, has no merit. Laches is an equitable doctrine which is invoked to bar a claim where a party’s inexcusable delay in instituting the claim has prejudiced the one who invokes the doctrine. *(Zaccaro*v. *Congregation Tifereth Israel of Forest Hills,*20 N Y 2d 77.) Further, the 30-day rule of practice pertaining to the appeal by the teacher intervenor respondents can be waived by the Commissioner. All of these questions of law were properly determined. The Commissioner basically held that the teachers were part of the summer school program and the compensation must be in .accord with the summer .school salary schedule. Further, that a local board cannot avoid this rule by a collateral contract with teachers. All other facts found by the Commissioner were reasonably supported by the record.

The title is to be amended to include the intervenor respondents.

The petition is dismissed as a matter of law.
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

Shipping Specimens to NVSL-FADDL

Last Modified: 

Print

U.S.-Origin Shipments

For Priority A, 1, or 2 foreign animal disease investigations, contact the laboratory at

631-323-3256 for additional instructions prior to shipping.

For priority A or 1, APHIS' National Center for Animal Health Emergency Management

is responsible for notifying the FADDL of all information regarding package transport.

Unless packages are being hand-carried, Federal Express or a carrier service that

will deliver directly to the FADDL at Orient Point, NY, is recommended. View

guidance on completing a FedEx airbill.

When airlines are used, use the same airline service between connection points

whenever possible to minimize problems involved with package transfer between

airlines. The pertinent information for the laboratory includes airline, flight number,

estimated time of arrival, airports involved, air waybill number, type of coolant used,

and telephone contact.

Address shipments to:

USDA, APHIS, FADDL

40550 Route 25
Orient, NY 11957

Phone: 631-323-3256

Additional shipping information regarding the shipment of specimens for foreign

animal disease investigations is found in Veterinary Services (VS) Guidance 12001.4.

Questions about shipping?

Contact NVSL-FADDL at the number listed above. 

International Shipments

A valid USDA Veterinary Permit for Importation and Transportation of Controlled

Material and Organisms and Vectors must be included in the shipment.

Contact the FADDL for additional details.

Address international shipments to:

Attn: FADDL Lab Director

USDA APHIS FADDL

Plum Island Animal Disease Center

40550 Route 25

Orient, NY 11957

Phone: 718-553-3570 or -3577

The shipper is responsible for contacting FADDL by phone or fax to provide shipment

information. To expedite package pickup at the port, provide as much advance

notice as possible of the intent to ship.
# C_2016202EN.01003701.xml

| 7.6.2016 | EN | Official Journal of the European Union | C 202/37 |
| --- | --- | --- | --- |

7.6.2016

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 202/37

---

Article 41

(ex Article 28 TEU)

(ex Article 28 TEU)

1.   Administrative expenditure to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise for the institutions shall be charged to the Union budget.

2.   Operating expenditure to which the implementation of this Chapter gives rise shall also be charged to the Union budget, except for such expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications and cases where the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise.

In cases where expenditure is not charged to the Union budget, it shall be charged to the Member States in accordance with the gross national product scale, unless the Council acting unanimously decides otherwise. As for expenditure arising from operations having military or defence implications, Member States whose representatives in the Council have made a formal declaration under Article 31(1), second subparagraph, shall not be obliged to contribute to the financing thereof.

3.   The Council shall adopt a decision establishing the specific procedures for guaranteeing rapid access to appropriations in the Union budget for urgent financing of initiatives in the framework of the common foreign and security policy, and in particular for preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 42(1) and Article 43. It shall act after consulting the European Parliament.

Preparatory activities for the tasks referred to in Article 42(1) and Article 43 which are not charged to the Union budget shall be financed by a start-up fund made up of Member States' contributions.

The Council shall adopt by a qualified majority, on a proposal from the High Representative of the Union for Foreign Affairs and Security Policy, decisions establishing:

| (a) | the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund; |
| --- | --- |

(a)

the procedures for setting up and financing the start-up fund, in particular the amounts allocated to the fund;

| (b) | the procedures for administering the start-up fund; |
| --- | --- |

(b)

the procedures for administering the start-up fund;

| (c) | the financial control procedures. |
| --- | --- |

(c)

the financial control procedures.

When the task planned in accordance with Article 42(1) and Article 43 cannot be charged to the Union budget, the Council shall authorise the High Representative to use the fund. The High Representative shall report to the Council on the implementation of this remit.

---
State of New York

Supreme Court, Appellate Division

Third Judicial Department

Decided and Entered: March 10, 2016 521002 

________________________________

In the Matter of JEAN L.

FRANTZ,

Appellant,

v

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

JOSEPH T. SMITH, as

Superintendent of 

Shawangunk Correctional 

Facility,

Respondent.

________________________________

Calendar Date: January 19, 2016

Before: Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ.

__________

Jean L. Frantz, Pine City, appellant pro se.

Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, Albany (Marcus J.

Mastracco of counsel), for respondent. 

__________

Appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court (Cahill, J.),

entered March 27, 2015 in Ulster County, which dismissed

petitioner's application, in a proceeding pursuant to CPLR

article 78, to review a determination of respondent finding

petitioner guilty of violating certain disciplinary rules.

Petitioner, a prison inmate, commenced this CPLR article 78

proceeding to challenge a tier II disciplinary determination

finding him guilty of refusing a direct order and creating a

disturbance. Supreme Court dismissed the petition, prompting

this appeal. The Attorney General has informed this Court that

the determination has been administratively reversed, all

references thereto have been expunged from petitioner's
-2- 521002 

institutional record and the mandatory $5 surcharge has been

refunded to petitioner's inmate account. In view of this, and

given that petitioner has received all the relief to which he is

entitled, this appeal has been rendered moot and must be

dismissed (see Matter of Lashway v Fischer, 112 AD3d 1172, 1172

[2013]). Petitioner's request for costs and expenses incurred

must be made by way of application to the court of original

instance (see CPLR 8601 [b]; Matter of Ferguson v Fischer, 115

AD3d 1105, 1106 [2014]). 

Peters, P.J., McCarthy, Garry and Clark, JJ., concur.

ORDERED that the appeal is dismissed, as moot, without

costs.

ENTER:

Robert D. Mayberger

Clerk of the Court
October 17, 2008

27949

#### Chang v. State, Dept. of Labor and Indus. Relations

Affirmed
Breadcrumb

1. Home

2. Print 

3. Pdf 

4. Node 

5. Entity Print 

National Animal Health Monitoring

System

Last Modified: 

Print

The National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS) unit conducts national

studies on the health and health management of U.S. domestic livestock, equine,

aquaculture, and poultry populations. These studies are designed to meet the

information needs of the industries associated with these commodities, as identified

by people within those industries.

Latest Studies

Sheep 2024 Study 

NAHMS, a nonregulatory unit of APHIS Veterinary Services, is conducting its Sheep

2024 study in collaboration with USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service. 

Backyard Animal Keeping 2024 Study 

NAHMS is planning a study on Backyard Animal Keeping that will take place in early

to mid-2024. 

All Commodity Studies
Antimicrobial Use and Resistance 

Aquaculture 

Beef Cow-Calf 

Beef Feedlot 

Bison 

Cervid 
Dairy 

Equine 

General 

Goat 

Poultry 
Sheep 

Small-Scale Operations 

Swine 

View all NAHMS studies and documents

Antimicrobial Resistance Information

FDA's Veterinary Feed Directive 

Watch this video providing details on the U.S. Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)

Veterinary Feed Directive.

USDA Antimicrobial Resistance Action Plan 
(PDF, 321.93 KB)

Download this document to view proposed initiatives.

Data Confidentiality

NAHMS is committed to protecting the confidentiality of the information provided by

participants in NAHMS studies. Only those collecting the data know the identity of

respondents. No name or contact information is associated with individual data, and

no data are reported in a way that could reveal the identity of a participant, as data

are presented only in an aggregate manner.

To further protect respondents’ information, NAHMS applied for, and in March 2012

received, recognition as a statistical unit under the Confidential Information

Protection and Statistical Efficiency Act (CIPSEA). Enacted in 2002, CIPSEA provides a

way for Federal agencies to collect statistical information and protect its

confidentiality using the force of law.

The specific data protections given to a NAHMS study participant's data is described

in detail in informed consent forms administered during the study. Additional

information regarding NAHMS' CIPSEA status as well as annual CIPSEA reports are

available below.

NAHMS CIPSEA Info Sheet (35.42 KB)

NAHMS CIPSEA Annual Reports

2022 Annual Report (173.59 KB)

2020 Annual Report (134.76 KB)

2019 Annual Report (135.13 KB)

See More See Less

U.S. Animal Health Reports

2017 Overview

2016 Overview

2015 Overview

2014 Overview
2013 Overview

2012 Overview

2011 Overview

2010 Overview

Contact Us

National Animal Health Monitoring System (NAHMS)

Email: nahms@usda.gov

Mailing Address

2150 Centre Ave., Bldg. B, Mailstop 2E7

Fort Collins, CO 80526

Note:

For questions about NAHMS studies or requests for special tabulations, reports, or

graphs in formats useable for lectures or presentations, please email us.

Related Links

Center for Epidemiology and Animal Health

National Animal Health Reporting System
#### HOLLYWOOD BRANDS, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent.

No. 20540.

United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit.

Dec. 20, 1963.

Rehearing Denied Jan. 29, 1964.

See 326 F.2d 400.

Fred S. Ball, Jr., Montgomery, Ala., for petitioner.

Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Dominick L. Manoli, Associate Gen. Counsel, N. L. R. B., Melvin Pollack, N. L. R. B., Washington, D. C., Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Allen M. Hutter, Atty., N. L. R. B., for respondent.

Before RIVES and CAMERON, Circuit Judges, and HUNTER, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

It appearing that the only issues before the Board are fact issues, and it further appearing that there was substantial evidence in the record as a whole to support the findings of the Board it is ordered that the Order of the Board shall be enforced.
<PAGE>

                                                                      Exhibit 11


                   CENTENNIAL CELLULAR CORP. AND SUBSIDIARIES
                              EXHIBIT TO FORM 10-Q

               For the Six Months Ended November 30, 1998 and 1997

                 COMPUTATION OF EARNINGS (LOSS) PER COMMON SHARE
                  (Amounts in thousands, except per share data)


<TABLE>
<CAPTION>
                                                                            Six Months Ended
                                                             ---------------------------------------------
                                                              November 30,                    November 30,
                                                                 1998                             1997
                                                             --------------                  -------------
                                                                               (Unaudited)
<S>                                                          <C>                             <C>           
Net Income (Loss)                                            $        6,343                  $     (16,412)
Preferred stock dividends                                            (8,226)                        (8,226)
                                                             --------------                  -------------
Income (loss) applicable to common shares                    $       (1,883)                 $     (24,638)
                                                             ==============                  =============

Average number of common shares and common
      share equivalents outstanding
         Average number of common shares
         outstanding during this period                          25,629,000                     26,601,000
        Add common share equivalents - Options
         to purchase common shares - net                            637,000                        302,000
                                                             --------------                  -------------
Average number of common shares and common
      share equivalents outstanding                              26,266,000 (A)                 26,903,000 (A)
                                                             ==============                  =============

Earnings (loss) per common share                             $         (.07)(A)              $        (.92)(A)
                                                             ==============                  =============
</TABLE>


(A)  In accordance with SFAS 128, the inclusion of common share equivalents in
     the computation of earnings per share need not be considered if the
     reduction of earnings per share is anti-dilutive. Therefore, loss per
     common share and common share equivalents as shown on the Consolidated
     Statements of Operations for the periods presented do not include certain
     common share equivalents as their effect is anti-dilutive.



<PAGE>
## This Certificate certifies that



# Christopher Bird Having satisfactorily completed the course of study And having passed the required examination in Flying,Controlling , Maneuvering and FAA Rules & Regulations is a 

### Qualified for

UAV Flight
Given under my hand on the 18 th Day of October, 2015 

### Ken Taboh
27484

#### Thomas v. Fukumoto

Affirmed